[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ndHwW8psR8]
Peer review says that this video doesn’t exist. And apparently Dr. Gifford Miller from the University of Colorado didn’t exist either.
h/t to Marc Morano and Van Helsing
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
Recent Comments
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Greg in NZ on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Greg in NZ on “falsely labeling”
- Gordon Vigurs on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
Interestingly, that episode features the late Steven Schneider warning us of the impending ice age. This is the same guy who was a poster boy for most AGW alarmists.
I wonder what they say about that? He was a looney back then, but he got better? Puh-leaze.
What Schneider was talking about was the effect of unrestricted aerosol pollution, which tends to have an overall cooling effect. This is something that most scientists would still agree with today. Your implicit assumption that both GHG-induced warming and aerosol-induced cooling can’t be true is incorrect. They can both be true.
Oh right. In 1945, humans suddenly started dumping huge amounts of aerosols into the air and in 1975 they suddenly stopped. It is completely believable if you are a moron.
We’ve been through this a million times. Strangely, you’ve never bothered to address the evidence or explain why anyone who thinks aerosols can affect climate is wrong. You restrict yourself to the always-effective and completely convincing “You’re a moron” approach.
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/capture269.jpg
Chris
If your little theory is right, please supply the data that quantifies the amount of sulfites being emitted year by year.
Until you can do this, it remains just another little theory.
If your little theory is right, please supply the data that quantifies the amount of sulfites being emitted year by year.
http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14537.pdf
Note the rapid postwar growth and what happened starting in about—yes—1975.
Your link, Steve, fails completely to address the evidence, or the issue, or the comment.
It is completely irrational to believe that a sudden dramatic reversal of temperature trends in 1945 was due to pollution. Your religion is stupider than that of the Aztecs.
Wow, another convincing and elegant argument, filled with solid science. You’re really on a roll!
You obviously are neither interested nor capable of comprehending science.
OK, let’s run through your responses. I’ll try to extract the nubs of your arguments.
1. “You’re a moron.”
2. “Here’s a link to an irrelevant graph of observed temps.”
3. “You’re irrational. Your religion is stupid.”
4. “You’re a moron.”
Brilliant arguments all, eh?
I’m going to assume from this stream of ad homs and non-responses that you don’t have any actual science-based arguments.
Your arguments boil down to : “some scientists say this – so no matter how irrational it is, I believe it.”
That makes you the official village idiot.
Steven:
Should we address that entity as OVIChris ?
OK, let’s add to the summary of your responses:
1. “You’re a moron.”
2. “Here’s a link to an irrelevant graph of observed temps.”
3. “You’re irrational. Your religion is stupid.”
4. “You’re a moron.”
5. “You’re an idiot.”
You have not once even attempted to address the science. It’s nothing but bluster and chest-pounding.
Your attempts to avoid the science while simultaneously accusing me, constantly, of avoiding the science are just breathtaking.
So. Kindly explain, using actual science, why aerosols that reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the surface would not tend to cause cooling. While you’re finished with that, explain what caused “the year without a summer,” why the explosion of Mount Tambora was just a coincidence, and why the same thing happens to one degree or another after every big volcanic eruption.
In 1945 the trend went from a sharp upwards climb to a sharp downwards climb. Unless you believe that there was a sudden huge increase in aerosols in 1945, please stop wasting everybody’s time with your village idiot rantings.
Oh, more “village idiot” chest-pounding. You didn’t even try to answer any of the reasonable questions I posed. I won’t repeat them, since that would be considered spamming here. But they’re still posted for anyone to see.
I wish I could say that this is shocking. Regrettably, it isn’t.
Do you believe that there was a huge increase in aerosol pollution in 1945?
Do you always answer questions with questions?
I’ve laid out my position, provided a link to the data, and asked you some questions to which you are not responding at all.
You are trying to distract with an untenable theory. The same thing you do on almost every thread.
TVI:
You again missed the explanations that natural weather variations were somewhat enhanced by human contributions but those were indistinguishable from natural events and did not prove to be long lived as normal changing trends took over in their own time and changed the pattern to warming which has again transitioned to another phase of cooling.
You are trying to distract with an untenable theory.
Which you have not even tried to rebut. Repeating “Moron!” over and over is really not much of a rebuttal. Neither is simply stating that it’s untenable.
I am assuming that anyone with half a brain can figure out that a sudden reversal in slope in 1945 was not due to sulfates.
Steven:
That is an insult! You are assuming that OVI has at least half a brain.
That is as bad as asking a known blind person: Can’t you see?
An Inconvenient Truth?
What? No trolls to tell us this video means nothing? Ok, I’ll try to fill in for them:
1. It isn’t Peer Reviewed!
2. Leonard Nimoy is an Alien!
3. I see ice cracking off in the background!
4. This was staged at Universal in a hanger!
5. That was weather, THIS is Climate!
6. Steve is Evil. Lies! Lies!
Did I forget anything?
Steve is cherry picking again.
There are NO TROLLS at this site! Just our resident wanna be humorists trying to add fantasy into the conversation.
Mary had a little lamb.Its fleece was white as show.
Every where that Mary went people were screaming about the advancing glaciers while pointing to the lamb.
Little Bo Peep has lost her sheep and does not know where to find them.
Al Gore and team sacrificed then to the climate gods because of their flatulence!
Thanks Steven,
I just downloaded a free Youtube downloader & converter http://www.youtubedownloaderhd.com/files/youtube_downloader_hd_setup.exe
which actually worked. I converted the file to AVI and it opened in Windows media player.
I have been trying other programs in the past but could not get them to work.
So, thanks for your push and thanks for your efforts to present factual information.
The 1970’s worry with cold may really be coming in the next 20years if the Russian predictions of solar cycles is correct.
keep strong
Hmmm. Let’s list a few of the other In Search Of topics: Bigfoot, psychic detectives, Atlantis, Martians, the Loch Ness monster, UFOs, astrology, witch doctors, alien abductions, the Bermuda Triangle, the Abominable Snowman, faith healing, Nostradamus, ghosts, and, of course, ancient alien astronauts.
The only real mystery here is how you can post this stuff and still expect to be taken seriously.
So perhaps Schneider should have had more sense than to get involved?
Probably. That doesn’t really affect the issue, though, does it?
Chris, we have been here before.
Many scientists at the time were forecasting the same thing.
Please do not try to give the impression that it was only Mister Spock doing it.
Please do not try to give the impression that it was only Mister Spock doing it.
I didn’t.
Well, heck, it seems they couldn’t disappear everything, yet. Chris, don’t worry, in about 20 years or so, the entire episode of the looming ice age via global cooling will start to fade from the worlds collective memory. Any references will probably be entirely dissappeared and mankind will be doomed to repeat the same mess again.
I get the feeling you’re not really paying attention.
1. Nobody says there wasn’t observed cooling, which is why the graph Steve links to over and over and over serves no particular purpose.
2. The predictions of continued near-term cooling were few and far between when compared to the predictions of near-term warming.
3. Most of the predictions of cooling rested on the effects of continued, uncontrolled aerosol pollution—a position with which most scientists would still agree today.
4. Using this ridiculous 70s TV program in a blog called “Real Science” is just plain lame.
The only thing ridiculous is your inability to understand that the aerosol theory was pulled out of someone’s rear to explain away an inconvenient truth.
ChrisD:
You are still claiming a natural event that followed historical patterns must have been exaggerated humans and maybe the ones in the early 1900s were also. How much industry was involved in causing the global Warming around 800AD, the Global Cooling around 200AD?
Chris, I get the feeling you’d be the one not paying attention.
1) The links showing the observations “set the plate”, if you will. Just because you
can’trefuse to see it, is your difficulty.2) No, not at that time. I’ve offered several links that show an overwhelming scientific preoccupation with the looming ice age. The fact that is doesn’t translate like the warming does today reflects a shift in the norms of the scientific community, not their preoccupation with alarmism, or the desire for notoriety.
3) While we could probably debate this ad nauseum, >b>the parallel with the current alarmism and CO2 is unmistakable. Hence, the point of the posts.
4) That “ridiculous 70s TV program” had real scientists interviewed, real scientists quoted. It is, yet again, another example of the alarmism and the mainstream acceptance of the alarmism. It was painfully obvious to the alarmists they needed a more refined method to spreading the alarm. Thus, today’s alarmism.
There’s a point-by-point rebut, but I’d also like to point out, you said, “2. The predictions of continued near-term cooling were few and far between when compared to the predictions of near-term warming.” This implies that the global cooling theory wasn’t prevalent in the scientific community. But, in your very next statement, you say, “…—a position with which most scientists would still agree today.”
Chris, I don’t disagree with your aerosol statement. I think, then, as they do now, attribute much of it to aerosols. The fact that the numbers and sequences of events don’t add up, pretty much invalidates the theory, but I think your assertion is correct. However, your two assertions and the connotations cannot both be true. Most cannot have held the theory and it not be prevalent in their thoughts and expressions. You’re applying today’s standards to the norms of yesteryear.
suyts:
They need to clear that up this year because CO2 now causes cooling and that is consistent with what the models project! They found an erroneous decimal point that was causing a problem with past projections that mistakenly projected warming when it was supposed to show cooling. The fired the decimal point!
lol, yeh! CO2 causes cooling, but aerosols did, but maybe not anymore, but CO2 causes warming, which causes cooling! Maybe if we had more aerosols it would paradoxically cause warming in which case, we’d have a perfect balance! Unless, of course, the omnipotent mankind gets tired of controlling the weather. Then we could start on less important things like world peace, hunger, nuclear proliferation to terrorists, weird stuff like that.
Chris
Thanks for this data on sulfites, it is actually very interesting.
What the graph on page 10 shows is what I would have expected – i.e there was as you quite rightly said a big increase during the 20th C although starting from the 1930’s rather than 1945.
More importantly although 1975 marks the time when the increase stopped the level has only declined marginally and emissions in 2000 were still as high as 1970. If cooling started in 1945 at a level of 25000 KT, then surely the cooling would still be with us at a level of >60000KT.
PS I notice that the graph goes upto 2000 – intuition would suggest that with the rapid growth of the Chinese + Indian economies in the last decade sulfites would be substantially now than in 2000. Perhaps this is why we have had no warming since 1995!
http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14537.pdf
No fair using logic and data at the same time! That will go over an AGWers head.
Human induced factors exaggerate natural climate trends except when they do not even if natural weather patterns in the past show more extremes before human factors could be included in the mix.
Paul, consider for a moment the possibility that, in broad terms, aersols cool and GHGs warm.
If aerosols leveled stopped increasing and leveled off in ~1975, and GHGs continued increasing, wouldn’t you expect to see temperatures do pretty much what they did over the course of the time period shown?
But surely any change would have been far more gradual with maybe a slowdown of the cooling trend before any warming?
Take care
Paul
Paul, I think you’re making the same mistake that Steve always makes. He wants to have things working in isolation. This is why he says that the whole aerosol idea is BS, because the cooling wouldn’t just suddenly start in 1945. Well, no one said aerosols were the complete cause of that. Lots of things affect climate. More than one thing can be happening at once; sometimes they conflict, sometimes they work together.
But there’s a perfectly rational reason why aerosols, especially sulfates, would cool climate: They increase Earth’s albedo and reduce the amount of energy reaching the surface. And we have historical evidence from explosions like Tambora that this actually does cool the climate, and direct evidence for the same thing from more recent events like Pinatubo.
Chris, you are about three years behind the rest of the world.
Steve, your comments are always so incisive, informative, responsive, and science-based. You always address the point being made so directly and logically, and you never, ever stoop to just posting ad homs without any substance.
It’s a marvel, that’s really what it is.
You started out by claiming that the sharp cooling after 1945 was due to aerosols, and then when it became obvious that it made no sense you tried to change the subject about 300 spam posts later.
A butterfly flapping its wings affects the climate. Your endless spam changes the climate.
Horseshit. I never, ever said or even implied that aerosols (or anything else) can completely account for ANY period of climate. You’re the one who constantly implies that if there isn’t a one-to-one correspondence between the temperature and whatever climate factor is under discussion, it’s obvious bullshit. Not me.
And, once again, it’s only “spam” because I have the temerity to question what you say. You just plain don’t like that, and that’s it. Any objective person could read the comments right here on this page and see who’s talking about the science and who’s avoiding it. Your own comments here are much closer to being spam than mine are.
ROFL. You started a conversation countless spam posts ago trying to account for 1970s global cooling as a result of aerosols.
You are completely FOS. And you spam incessantly.
This is a somewhat pointless debate.
Chris D is right that a TV show is hardly a solid representation of science, while Steven is correct in pointing out that the science consensus at the time, as expressed by its more vocal exponents such as Steven Schneider, was for cooling. The consensus has since changed, but that does not mean it is correct now.
Aerosols and GHGs are two very different elements in their atmospheric impact, neither that well understood as evidenced by the modest performance of the existing atmospheric models. It seems unproductive to argue too much about their relative impacts, given our current understanding or lack thereof of climate drivers such as the ENSO or the AMO.
An increment of humility and a more civil tone would benefit the climate debate.
The real point is that if climatologists got it wrong then, why should we trust them now.
Steven is correct in pointing out that the science consensus at the time, as expressed by its more vocal exponents such as Steven Schneider, was for cooling. The consensus has since changed, but that does not mean it is correct now.
How nice to see a civil comment.
I think, however, that this mischaracterizes the situation in a couple of ways.
First, there’s no evidence that there was a “consensus” prediction of cooling in the 1970s. There was a consensus that it was cooling, but not that it was going to continue. The only hard data on this that I’m aware of (Peterson 2008) reviewed the literature from 1965-1979 and found that papers predicting warming far outnumbered papers predicting cooling. In fact, during that entire 15-year span, they found only seven “cooling” papers—fewer than one paper every other year.
Second, why did those papers predict cooling? Well, some of them weren’t short-term predictions. In essence they noted, correctly, that natural cycles would eventually result in the return of an ice age. I don’t know anyone who would dispute this. Most of the rest were, like Schneider, talking about the cooling effects of aerosols, so the predictions were “if” scenarios: If we keep emitting aerosols like this, we have to think about the possibility of serious near-term cooling. Again, most scientists would still agree with this idea.
So, the whole idea that “They were wrong then, maybe they’re wrong now” falls apart for two reasons: First, of course they could be wrong now. Being wrong in the past has nothing to do with that. You could say exactly the same thing regarding just about anything in science. Second, were they actually wrong? If so, how? There’s no ice age, but why not, and is it inconsistent with what they were saying, given that we did do something about aerosols?
The amount of aerosols being released was NOT reduced but stabilized for a short period. Some regions reduced and other regions took up the slack to maintain the concentrations until recently when aerosols again started increasing. One of the aerosols they were monitoring was dust concentrations in the desert where sand storms are common but human activity must have been the cause.
Natural cycles are leading to the return of glaciation in some regions and another maximum glaciation period for the earth. But of course that trend started over 5 thousand years ago and nothing humans have done has changed the pattern. Average 60 year cycles are still being observed in weather patterns
The amount of aerosols being released was NOT reduced but stabilized for a short period. Some regions reduced and other regions took up the slack to maintain the concentrations until recently when aerosols again started increasing.
Link to data supporting this, please? The PNNL paper clearly shows, on page 10, sulfur emissions peaking around 1975 and then declining through the end of the chart in 2000.
Emissions are way down because of the thousands of new coal burning power plants in China.
Chris, please look at the criteria used for the study. It isn’t worth quoting.
Steven:
TVI’s comments are NT untenable theories but WAGs. An untenable theory can be falsified or rather is before being proclaimed. No theory of any sort involved in the proclamations of TVI, just repeats from the ACCers that are suffering from CACD.
I think this blog works much better when people actually engage Chris in debate than simply abuse him, declare him an alarmist moron, etc. Personally, I’ve no axe to grind and I’m always interested to hear both sides of the argument and (hopefully) learn something.
I’ve made that mistake a couple of times. Chris is more than happy to lead the conversation further and further off topic.That seems to be his sole purpose for posting
It really doesn’t matter how many times you repeat this, it’s not true, and it never will be.
Aerosols reached a tipping point in 1945 causing all hell to break loose. Then they untipped in 1975.
Sorry Chris, but this board has too many threads that have good off on good long OT tangents because of you for anyone to take your denial of that fact seriously.
John, anything I post that’s off topic is generally a direct response to someone else. Then, of course, Steve blames me, not the person I responded to, for being off topic. That is his MO.
engaging chris civily is difficult because, besides disputing the obvious, he never explicitly states his point when he might have one.
on a few occasions i have seen chris, 30 posts in, finally divulge some salient point
Read the comments here. If you don’t see the point, you’re either not paying attention, you don’t understand them, or you’re just parroting Steve.
enlighten me!
having spent 30 years of my life in seattle i can tell you that the chinese regularly send over colossal brown aerosol clouds…and that was before the immense development they have undertaken the last ten years.
we may have cleaned up our act but i gaurantee china and india have picked up the polluters slack. especially since they now have all of our jobs and production
and now the cap and traders want to gaurantee that whatever is left here gets shipped overseas to where there are virtually no environmental controls.
ya, that’s good for the environment.
how do people even fall for such crap?
Peter:
It is not in their back yard so it must not be happening. Some actually believe aerosols were by developed countries Clean Air Acts. That was when industries started mass migration out of the country. The EPA along with NAFTA and favored nation status drove major industry out. Of course high wages and benefits did a lot to help the exodus also.
With no real reduction in aerosols it was not clean air that allowed warming to start in the 70s.
It is not in their back yard so it must not be happening.
i guess there is no real lower limit to complacency, lack of curiosity, and ignorance.
even if they have a clue what’s happening out there, people have been so immersed in cognitive dissonance that they are generally incapable of discerning the most obvious contradictions and inconsistencies.
CACD Contagiously Acquired Cognitive Dissonance.
It is caught while in school when they teach you what to think rather than research and evaluate.
The more interesting information in the clip is that the satellite era began on an arctic ice extent high. Did we reach the low 34 years later in 2007?
I have-not heard the greenies condemn giving the 2022 world cup to a middle east country that will have to air condition the stadia. Crazy! but thats what happens when politics is involved !
The truth can be found here
http://www.iceagenow.com/
New Little Ice Age ‘to Begin in 2014’
20 May 10 – Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, predicts that a new “Little Ice Age” could begin in just four years.